Emily Reynolds
Dr. Richard Newhauser (ENG 494)
07 October 2010
Geoffrey’s and Chrétien’s Guinevere: The Development of Agency in Arthur’s Queen
Throughout the course of the Arthurian tradition, the character of Guinevere appears with
remarkable variety of characterizations, from repentant adulteress to fearless warrior to a nearly nonexistent figurehead. In Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae (hereafter referred to as the
Historia), Guinevere is a function of empire-building power and is denied little if any ruling power of her
own. The only initiative Geoffrey grants his queen is the ability to contribute to Arthur’s downfall
through adultery; however, the ambiguity of the degree of her guilt limits even this small power. On
the other hand, the Guinevere of Chrétien de Troyes’ Erec and Enide, Cligés, and The Knight of the Cart
is an active and authoritative figure at court, commanding respect and deference as both a political
leader and a female ruler. The contrast between these two depictions is rooted in the degree of agency
each author grants their respective Guineveres.
The first purpose Guinevere serves in Geoffrey’s work is as a legitimizing factor in Arthur’s reign.
Their marriage occurs after Arthur manages to subdue his opponents and “[restore] the entire kingdom
to its former state of pristine dignity.”1 Once he stabilizes the nation through military prowess, his next
step in assuring his authority is to marry Guinevere, which ideally will produce an heir and ensure the
continuance of his line. Guinevere’s entrance into the Historia is sudden and surprising; within the same
sentence she is both introduced and married to Arthur. Geoffrey’s first characterization of the queen
notes that she “sprang from a noble Roman family.”2 That pointing to Guinevere’s nobility is the
primary description Geoffrey offers is quite revealing, as it indicates her lineage and the legitimacy it
establishes is the main contribution she brings to her marriage and Arthur’s reign. Fiona Neuendorf also
understands Guinevere as a contributor to Arthur’s empire-building through delineating Geoffrey’s work
as an epic narrative with pastoral interludes. She explains that “in the main epic narrative line, women
1
Geoffrey of Monmouth, The History of the Kings of Britain, trans. and ed. Michael A. Faletra (Peterborough,
Canada: Broadview Press, 2008), 170.
2
Ibid.
Reynolds 2
produce heirs and, consequently, help build empires.”3 Through this interpretation, it becomes clear
that Guinevere’s purpose in her marriage and one of her main functions in the Historia is to contribute
to legitimizing and building Arthur’s reign.
This is further seen when Guinevere appears in a supporting role during Arthur’s coronation.
Geoffrey describes how “archdeacons and priests escorted the queen in all her regalia to the church of
the devoted virgins.”4 Her participation in this ceremony is necessary, but the festivities do not focus on
the couple’s dual ascensions to the throne. Instead, the ceremonies glorify Arthur; Guinevere’s
presence is a side effect of her relationship to the king. The people’s reactions to Guinevere are positive
– during the two ceremonies, the masses “did not know which church [Arthur’s or Guinevere’s] they
should attend first.”5 However, while “Guenevere enjoys the adoration of her people, … these people
come to the coronation because of … ‘[Arthur’s] fame for generosity and uprightness’.”6 Neuendorf
defends this scene as marking a balance of power between Arthur and Guinevere, claiming that “by
setting up parallel descriptions of the King’s and Queen’s procession to separate church celebrations,
Geoffrey makes Geunevere Arthur’s ceremonial equal.”7 While she carefully delineates the parallel
between the two processions, her expansion of this observation to the assertion that “these parallel
processions and feasts signify their equality in marriage” overextends their similarities. Further, she
contradicts this statement by noting that “Geoffrey alludes only to Arthur’s, not Guenevere’s,
coronation specifically: ‘Finally, when they had all gathered in the city, at the solemn moment, the
archbishops were led to the palace, so that they might crown the king with the royal crown’.”8 Although
Guinevere plays a ceremonial role in the coronation, the emphasis on the crowning of the king and the
3
Fiona Tolhurst Neuendorf, “From Adultery to Redemption: Queen Guinevere in Arthurian History and Romance,
1135-1485” (Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1995), 38.
4
Geoffrey of Monmouth, 175.
5
Geoffrey of Monmouth, 176.
6
Neuendorf, 67.
7
Neuendorf, 48.
8
Neuendorf, 58.
Reynolds 3
noted purpose for the people’s presence curtails deeming Guinevere an equal in marriage. Instead, the
coronations assert Arthur’s political dominance with Guinevere serving as a supportive symbol of his
power.
If Guinevere initially serves to build the legitimacy of and perpetuate Arthur’s reign, her second
purpose is to contribute to its destruction through her adultery with Mordred. Yet unlike later authors,
Geoffrey does not emphasize her direct contribution to the treachery. When first introducing
Mordred’s betrayal, he relates that Mordred “had proven himself to be a tyrant and a traitor [and] had
seized the throne of Britain.”9 Noting that Mordred “now took his wicked pleasure with Guinevere”
seems almost an afterthought, tacked on to Mordred’s betrayal and positioned at the very end of Book
X.10 This leaves the sense that Guinevere’s sin is “an outgrowth” of Modred’s treachery.11 Peter Korrel
supports this analysis in stating, “It is obvious that the whole affair for the most part was Modred’s
initiative.”12 Furthermore, Neuendorf notes that “the sentence structure makes Modred the primary
offender.”13 Therefore Guinevere’s betrayal can be seen as a consequence of Mordred’s treachery, but
does not explicitly point to Guinevere’s agency in the act. As Neuendorf explains, Mordred could have
raped the queen, which would also result in the “[breaking of] her marriage vows.”14 Korrel reads her
flight to a convent as “a confession of guilt” because “she fears the repercussions that are bound to
follow.”15 Upon contextual examination, however, “Guenevere flees because it is announced to her that
Modred is entering Winchester, but it [is] not clear that she flees Arthur.” Instead, “her flight might very
9
Geoffrey of Monmouth, 196.
Ibid.
11
Neuendorf, 58-59.
12
Peter Korrel, An Arthurian Triangle (Leiden: EJ Brill and the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of
Pure Research, 1984), 121.
13
Neuendorf, 59.
14
Geoffrey of Monmouth, 196.
15
Korrel, 122.
10
Reynolds 4
well be to avoid Modred.”16 Geoffrey thus leaves her motive in flight uncertain, making it difficult to
assert that she does so out of shame for her sin.
The ambiguity of Guinevere’s guilt makes it difficult to determine exactly how much power
Geoffrey meant to allow Guinevere in her ability to ruin Arthur’s reign. With consideration of the above
noted sentence structure , it seems as if she is almost a passive participant in her sin, with Geoffrey
placing the majority of the blame on Mordred. Even if she was complicit in the adultery, her overall role
in the destruction of Arthur’s empire is comparatively minimal when considered against the martial
destruction Mordred causes. It is Mordred who sends envoys to Germany “in order to muster whatever
allies he could;” it is Mordred who “[marches] out to meet Arthur” and whose troops leave the king
mortally wounded.17 Mordred’s actions cause “great carnage … on both sides.”18 Guinevere’s adultery
has little impact on this actual destruction, it just compounds Mordred’s treachery. Geoffrey thus limits
the amount of agency he grants Guinevere in contributing to the downfall of Arthur’s empire.
In both her empire-building and empire-destroying functions, Guinevere plays a secondary role.
Neuendorf notes that Geoffrey’s “vision of history requires both the inclusion and final subordination of
female characters.”19 Geoffrey allows her no sense of partnership in her marriage to Arthur. Her
contribution to their union is not her uniqueness as an individual, but rather her lineage – an inherent
characteristic over which she has no control. Her appearance at the coronation is simply that of a
supporting actress. Guinevere may be “a prototypically noble and beautiful queen with significant
ceremonial power and the potential to rule, but her story is secondary to that of the succession of
kings,” especially Arthur.20 She serves as a symbol of the empire; Arthur uses her to establish himself as
a legitimate ruler. Conversely, Mordred’s affair with Guinevere snatches her away from Arthur in an
16
Neuendorf, 59.
Geoffrey of Monmouth, 197.
18
Geoffrey of Monmouth, 199.
19
Neuendorf, 73.
20
Neuendorf, 87.
17
Reynolds 5
effort to lay the legitimizing groundwork for his own reign. Her adultery can thus be seen as a side
effect of Mordred’s empire-building, with her active contribution to the affair implicit yet not necessarily
complicit. Geoffrey thus limits Guinevere’s agency to rule as a individual, limiting her to a highly
symbolized and limited role as queen.
Less than four decades after the Historia, Chrétien de Troyes began composing five Arthurian
romances for which he would become renowned. The differences between Chrétien’s treatment of
Arthurian material and the Historia’s depictions abound, but one striking difference is his treatment of
Guinevere. Peter Noble notes: “Chrétien took very little of his material for this character from his
predecessors, with the result that she is very largely his own creation.”21 Chrétien provides a shockingly
more active role for Guinevere in Arthur’s court, as her authority plays out in multiple spheres of court
life. He moves away from Guinevere in her role as a symbolic contributor to empire-building or
destruction and instead focuses on her individuality and agency as a ruler.
The first noticeable addition to Guinevere’s characterization is the attainment of an influential
position among Arthur’s ruling elite. In Erec and Enide, Arthur and “many of the best barons of the
court” form a council, their “debate [goes] on so long that the queen [arrives] on the scene.”22 Not only
does “[Guinevere come] to [the King’s] council without being sent for and, as far as can be seen from the
text, by right,” but it is ultimately her solution that is adopted.23 That Guinevere’s suggestion is
accepted unanimously – “there was not one who disagreed with her” – indicates both her right to give
opinions on court manners and the influence her opinion held.24 Lancelot places faith in her wisdom
and authority in The Knight of the Cart when he accepts her unexpected displeasure, asserting that “she
21
Peter Noble, “The Character of Guinevere in the Arthurian Romances of Chretien de Troyes,” in Lancelot and
Guinevere, ed. Lori J Walters (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1996), 203.
22
Chrétien de Troyes, Arthurian Romances, trans. William W Kibler and Carleton W Carroll (London: Penguin
Books, 2004), 41.
23
Noble, 207.
24
Chrétien de Troyes, 41.
Reynolds 6
did not do so without reason.”25 Her authority is also evident in the deference shown by Erec as a
member of Arthur’s court. Although he first seeks Arthur’s leave when he wishes to return home, he
next “[asks] the queen’s permission to leave.”26 In Cligés Guinevere supervises the comings and goings
of the court is again pointed to when she “[sits] in the [king’s] tent because she wished to observe the
new knights as they approached,” acting as a sort of inspector-general of Arthur’s troops.27 Finally, in
regards to The Knight of the Cart, Noble notes that “when Meleagant comes to Arthur’s court to
challenge Lancelot, the Queen is quick to warn the King of his evil nature,” demonstrating “she feels able
to advise and intervene if necessary in the affairs of the court.”28 Chrétien thus brings Guinevere to the
forefront of court politics, allowing her an active and influential role in her authority as queen.
The second new characterization Chrétien develops in Guinevere is a sort of feudal authority.
During Yder’s episode in Erec and Enide, the humbled knight declares, “My dwarf, my maiden and
myself I shall place completely at her mercy.”29 His arrival at Arthur’s court reinforces this, for “[Yder]
greeted [the queen] first of all, then the king and his knights.”30 His order of address reveals his
deference first to Guinevere, then Arthur. Chrétien empowers the queen with the ability to receive his
servitude, and as such she can be seen as his ruling lord. That she “[frees him] … in the proper manner”
furthers the conclusion that she has feudal control over Yder, as Chrétien adheres to the mechanisms
within feudalism by acknowledging their presence.31 Guinevere’s feudal authority is also seen in Cligés
when Alexander offers his of conquered knights to Guinevere instead of the king, “[suggesting] she was
not without power and influence at the court.” 32 Additionally, in The Knight of the Cart, Guinevere’s
deeming of Lancelot as “a knight in my service” (contextually, not in reference to a service of love)
25
Chrétien de Troyes, 260.
Chrétien de Troyes, 65.
27
Chrétien de Troyes, 137.
28
Noble, 214.
29
Chrétien de Troyes, 50.
30
Chrétien de Troyes, 52.
31
Ibid.
32
Noble, 211.
26
Reynolds 7
reflects again this feudal authority.33 Not only is Guinevere therefore active within court politics, but
Chrétien suggests at her ability to hold feudal authority as well.
Chrétien develops a third novel role for Guinevere in her definite ruling partnership with Arthur.
In Erec and Enide, Guinevere prompts Arthur to acknowledge the worth of her counsel . He obliges by
noting, “We did well yesterday to take your advice.” However, this is directly followed by his request
that she free Yder from his servitude to her, which she grants “straight away.”34 Chrétien thus
establishes a give and take between the king and queen, a relationship marked by mutual respect and
acknowledgement of each other’s wisdom in ruling. During the episode in which Alexander offers his
prisoners to Guinevere in Cligés, Arthur and Guinevere “[discuss] the traitors with one another, as was
proper.”35 Chrétien’s commentary on the properness of Arthur and Guinevere’s council again indicates
the equal status each should have in this discussion, even if Guinevere eventually releases the prisoners
to Arthur.36 In certain situations, Arthur even gives Guinevere more power, such as when he approaches
her to aid him in retaining Kay in The Knight of the Cart.37 Even more generally, the author “frequently
couples [Arthur and Guinevere’s] names as if it were natural for them always to be together.”38 The
royal couple is seen traveling the country together and ruling side by side at court.39 He thus establishes
a duality in the rulers of Arthur’s court, with Guinevere functioning as an active partner in Arthur’s reign.
In addition to her balanced rule with Arthur, Guinevere also operates with authority within a
purely feminine domain as well. Noble notes that “she also has an important role to play in the
ceremonial of the court … [supervising] the bedding of the newly-married couple …and dressing … Enide
33
Chrétien de Troyes, 261.
Chrétien de Troyes, 52.
35
Chrétien de Troyes, 139.
36
Chrétien de Troyes, 140.
37
Chrétien de Troyes, 208.
38
Noble, 208.
39
Chrétien de Troyes, 85 and 118.
34
Reynolds 8
for the coronation.”40 Her “[taking] charge of the preparations and the bedding” for Erec and Enide is a
markedly maternal action, especially since Chrétien notes that she does it because “she dearly loved
them both.”41 She also displays a motherly affection when she “[takes] great pains to adorn Enide as
well as she could” for Enide’s coronation. These two episodes contrast sharply with Guinevere’s
ceremonial role in the Historia; Geoffrey limits Guinevere to her own coronation, which in itself was
overshadowed by the grander purpose of Arthur’s crowning. Further, Geoffrey gives none of the
matronly characteristics to Guinevere that appear in Chrétien’s work; the latter author fleshes out
Guinevere’s personality by granting her authority in these feminine domains.
In Cligés Guinevere has an even more prominent role in the distinctly feminine side of her
authority. Once she realizes the love between Alexander and Soredamors, “she is both able and willing
to take an active role in promoting [their] love.”42 Upon Alexander’s return from battle, she is “well
aware of his thoughts” about Soredamors, so she “[seeks] to serve his wishes.”43 Guinevere
demonstrates her female power through compelling Alexander and Soredamores to express their love.
She serves as their matchmaker, displaying her authority over the feminine realms of love and marriage
by “[giving] them to one another.”44 Her matronly actions encourage and ensure their love, pointing to
her power as an influential female.
In The Knight of the Cart, Guinevere’s control in her adultery also reinforces her feminine power.
Chrétien replaces Mordred with Lancelot as Guinevere’s partner in adultery and develops a love affair
between the two to a degree that is unprecedented in Geoffrey’s depiction of Mordred and Guinevere.
Guinevere develops an certain agency as a “calculating adulteress” which juxtaposes the ambiguous
40
Noble, 207.
Chrétien de Troyes, 62.
42
Noble, 209.
43
Chrétien de Troyes, 150.
44
Chrétien de Troyes, 151.
41
Reynolds 9
degree of blame Geoffrey allows her.45 In toying with Lancelot’s heart, she sets the terms for their
relationship. At first she spurns his company “as a joke” but later warmly welcomes him and “[honors]
him with her kindest attentions.”46 Her absolute control over the situation and terms of their
relationship indicate her agency in their affair. She provides Lancelot with a plan for a secret tryst,
during which she “willingly [seeks] his company and affection” and “[has] great desire for him.”47 While
Chrétien does not offer the reader with an account of Arthur’s downfall as a result of this affair, the
manner with which he approaches it contrasts with Geoffrey’s work. Guinevere is clearly indicated as
not only an active participant in her adultery, but the one who controls the entire affair.
Guinevere also displaces womanly leadership in The Knight of the Cart when the maidens of
Arthur’s court ask her to reign over their tournament, at which they hope to find husbands. Chrétien
demonstrates the impact of Guinevere’s power, stating that “for every one who would ordinarily have
come [to the tournament], there were seven who attended only because of the queen.”48 Although the
Historia also portrays a tournament scene, Guinevere plays no significant role in it. Geoffrey mentions
that “the ladies looked on from atop the city walls,” but Guinevere is not explicitly mentioned. Further,
there is no sense that this tournament serves the purpose of finding husbands, but rather constitutes a
festive “playing of various games.”49 Chrétien’s Guinevere thus infuses the tournament scene with new
purpose: that of marriage. In overseeing the tournament, the match-making component of her
feminine authority appears again.
Chrétien de Troyes thus develops Guinevere’s agency as both and individual and a ruler
throughout Erec and Enide, Cliges, and The Knight of the Cart. As Noble summarizes, “Chrétien seems to
have preferred to see her as an active and kindly woman of great intelligence and understanding, taking
45
Noble, 217.
Chrétien de Troyes, 259 and 262.
47
Chrétien de Troyes, 263 and 264.
48
Chrétien de Troyes, 275.
49
Geoffrey of Monmouth, 176.
46
Reynolds 10
an almost motherly interest in the knights of her husband’s court and helping to smooth the path for
young lovers.”50 Guinevere demonstrates a capacity to be influential in the politics of the court, even to
the point of accepting a sort of feudal authority. She also inhabits a domain of feminine power,
arranging couples and helping promote younger courtiers in a distinctly maternal manner. Finally,
Chrétien does not shy away from extending this agency to her sin as well, giving her control over her
affair with Lancelot.
The levels of agency Geoffrey of Monmouth and Chrétien de Troyes extend to their Guineveres
is markedly disparate. Guinevere of the Historia is a symbol of state power who receives little or no
power in her own right, while Chrétien’s queen flourishes in a court obviously under her shared
authority with Arthur. Where this agency comes from calls for further examination. Was Chrétien’s
Guinevere simply “made necessary by the type of society for which he was writing and by the demands
of the stories themselves?”51 Or did something happen in the intervening decades between the two
authors that developed the oral tradition of the tale to allow Guinevere this agency? Causation for
these differences might also be rooted in the fact these authors are from two different countries,
although the cultures of French and English high societies during this period were arguably identical in
many ways. Certainly the style and format – chronicle or romance – of the works had some influence.
Any of these questions provide opportunity for further critical exploration into the development of
agency in Guinevere’s character within medieval retellings of the Arthurian legend.
50
51
Noble, 217.
Noble, 203.
Reynolds 11
Works Cited
Chrétien de Troyes. Arthurian Romances. Translated by William W Kibler and Carleton W Carroll.
London: Penguin Books, 2004.
Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. Translated and edited by Michael A Faletra.
Peterborough, Canada: Broadview Press, 2008.
Korrel, Peter. An Arthurian Triangle. Netherlands: EJ Brill and the Netherlands Organization for the
Advancement of Pure Research, 1984.
This abridged version of Korrel’s dissertation was the least cited of my sources, primarily because
Neuendorf takes his very cursory analysis and delves deeper into the topic. However, he does argue for
what I would consider the traditional stance on Guinevere’s guilt in Geoffrey, which through the aid of
Neuendorf I was able to contradict.
Neuendorf, Fiona Tolhurst. “From Adultery to Redemption: Queen Guenevere in Arthurian History and
Romance, 1135-1485.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1995.
This dissertation provided a nice framework for my analysis of Geoffrey. While I disagree with the
amount of ruling capacity Neuendorf sees in Geoffrey’s Guinevere, her analysis was help in focusing my
attention on pertinent details, especially that of the degree of Guinevere’s guilt and the function of the
coronation. Additionally, the contextual analysis she offers, examining Geoffrey’s ruling women as
political commentary for the contemporary Matilda and Stephen debate, will likely find a place in the
extended edition of this paper. Unfortunately, the romances Neuendorf analyzes are the Alliterative
and Stanzaic Morte Arthurs and Malory, so I was unable to use her discussion of the romances for this
paper.
Noble, Peter. “The Character of Guinevere in the Arthurian Romances of Chrétien de Troyes,” in Lancelot
and Guinevere, edited by Lori J Walters, 203-218. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1996.
Noble’s essay served much the same function for Chrétien that Neuendorf’s dissertation did for
Geoffrey. His highlighting of the various roles Guinevere plays in each of the romances led me to include
Erec and Enide and Cliges in this paper, instead of just focusing on The Knight of the Cart. The essay also
provided me with a rhetoric through which to discuss Guinevere’s feminine authority, which I had had
difficulty articulating and fully conceptualizing.